Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

18 FLRA No. 59
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, HEALTH CARE
FINANCING ADMINISTRATION
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Intervenor
Case No. 3-CA-20319
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had not engaged in
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending
that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Charging Party and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision, and the
Respondent and the Intervenor filed oppositions thereto. /1/
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation that the complaint be
dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-20319 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 13, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
William Smith Hill
William McGuire
For Respondent
James A. Lawrence, Esq.
Sharon Pinnock
For Intervenor
John Thornton
For Charging Party
Susan Shinkman, Esq.
John W. Kyle, Esq.
For General Counsel, FLRA
Before: SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ, Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (hereinafter
referred to as the Statute) and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal
Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), 5 C.F.R.Chapter XIV, Sec. 2410 et seq.
Pursuant to a charge filed on February 4, 1982 by American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Union or AFGE),
against Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland (hereinafter called Respondent or
HCFA), the General Counsel of the FLRA by the Director of Region 3,
issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on December 10, 1982. The
Complaint alleges that HCFA violated Section 7116(a)(3) and (1) of the
Statute by permitting and failing "to take action to prevent"
non-employee representation of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
from soliciting membership from among HCFA's employees at Respondent's
Baltimore Headquarters. HCFA filed an Answer, a first Amended Answer,
and a Second Amended Answer, denying that it had violated the Statute.
A hearing was held before the undersigned in Baltimore, Maryland.
HCFA, AFGE, NTEU and General Counsel of the FLRA were represented and
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence and to argue orally. Post hearing
briefs were filed and have been fully considered.
Based upon the entire record in this matter, my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, and my evaluation of the evidence, I make
the following:
Findings of Fact
Respondent is an activity of the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), created in 1978 by the merger of the Social
Rehabilitation Service the Bureau of Health Insurance. HCFA's central
office consists of its premises at 6305 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland and a group of employees located in Washington, D.C. Employees
of Respondent's Central Office have since August 1980 been exclusively
represented by AFGE in a unit consisting of professional and
nonprofessional employees of Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland location
and nonprofessional employees located in Washington, D.C.
Representational matters rising in the Baltimore, Maryland location of
HCFA are handled by AFGE Local 1923 as designee of AFGE.
Representational matters arising in Respondent's Washington, D.C.
location have by similar designation been given to AFGE Local 41.
HCFA's Baltimore, Maryland location is a multi-building complex.
HCFA's employees occupy, among other buildings at the complex, the East
High Rise and the East Low Rise. The majority of space in the East High
Rise and East Low Rise Buildings is occupied by HCFA's employees,
although the Social Security Administration, DHHS, occupies some portion
of space on the ground floor and first floor of the East Low Rise.
The East High Rise Building is a rectangular structure with
entranceways and lobby areas along its northern, eastern and western
sides. The East Low Rise Building is a rectangular structure with
entranceways and lobby areas along the eastern and western sides of its
ground floor and the southern side of its first floor. Between the East
Low Rise Building and the East High Rise Building is a cafeteria, /2/
with its main entranceway off of the ground floor hallways of the East
High Rise.
William Holman is HCFA's Director of Labor Relations. In December
1980, at the time Mr. Holman was being interviewed for his position, he
was told that the NTEU was "sniffing around" or exhibiting interest in
the AFGE bargaining unit. In June 1981, HCFA received a request from
NTEU asking for certain information including the size and location of
the AFGE unit. On August 13, 1981, HCFA furnished NTEU with the
information it requested. In later November 1981, Holman was
telephonically contacted by NTEU representative Scott Schaefer who said
he wished to meet with HCFA's labor relations office. Holman and a
staff member met with Schaefer and another NTEU representative,
whereupon the NTEU representatives said they planned to come to HCFA's
premises to distribute literature and solicit signatures. Holman, who
had never been involved in an organizing campaign before, informed the
NTEU representatives that his investigation and that of his staff had
shown that HCFA was not free to provide NTEU with any facilities or
anything else. Holman told Schaefer of his understanding that the
cafeteria, the western entranceway to the ground floor of the East High
Rise and the southern entranceway to the first floor of the East Low
Rise were public areas. Schaefer did not ask Respondent's permission to
come into the public areas of the East High Rise or East Low Rise at any
time.
In early or mid-December 1981, non-employee representatives of NTEU
solicited signatures from NCFA's employees in the first floor lobby area
of the East Low Rise, and the ground floor of the East Low Rise. HCFA
employees were asked to sign a petition for the purpose of supporting an
election between AFGE and NTEU. On the first floor lobby area of the
East Low Rise, the NTEU representatives also distributed leaflets.
Non-employee representatives of NTEU solicited signatures from HCFA's
employees on December 21, 22 and 23, 1981. Respondent's employees were
asked to sign a petition for the purpose of having a secret ballot
election in which NTEU would be a choice. During the period between
late November 1981 and December 25, 1981, Holman saw an NTEU
representative passing out pamphlets and taking signatures in the first
floor lobby area of the East Low Rise Building. Holman asked the NTEU
representative if she had General Services Administration (GSA)
permission to be on the property. The NTEU representative replied that
she had such permission. No other questions were asked of the NTEU
representative by Holman.
During this same period of time Holman was approached by
representatives of AFGE Local 1923, who complained that Holman should
not allow NTEU access to the premises. Holman replied that as NTEU was
on GSA property over which Respondent had no control. Holman was
approached during the same period by a representative of AFGE who
referred Holman to decisions of the Assistant Secretary the FLRA,
including 2 FLRA 359. Holman replied that the advice from his agency
was that he could do nothing to keep NTEU from the property. This
advice had come from HCFA's General Services Supervisor, Richard Rohde,
who acted as liaison with GSA. Rohde had been approached by the labor
relations staff and asked his opinion as to whether lobby areas of
Respondent's premises were public access spaces. Rohde had said they
were public access spaces. Holman replied solely on Rohde's advice
before December 25, 1981. Shortly after the Christmas 1981 holiday,
HCFA's labor relations staff and Holman looked into whether HCFA could
keep NTEU off the premises and contacted representatives of DHHS at the
National and Philadelphia Regional level, as well as representatives of
other Federal agencies. Holman also contacted the GSA Building managers
at Respondent's Headquarters, including Mr. Glover, the GSA
representative handling the East Low Rise and East High Rise Buildings.
Glover "waivered a little bit" on the question of NTEU's access to those
buildings. Glover had told Flynn of AFGE Local 1923 that NCFA
controlled the areas of the East Low Rise in which NTEU was soliciting.
Holman was telephonically informed by a Mr. Roth, an Area Manager of
GSA, that Roth would not stop NTEU from entering Respondent's Baltimore,
Maryland location.
In early January 1982, Holman was telephonically contacted by a Ms.
Pinnock, a representative of NTEU, who stated NTEU's intention to
re-enter two unidentified buildings. Holman asked Pinnock if she would
stay off the property until HCFA further examined the issue. Pinnock
stated that she did not have to stay off the property and that she would
respond further after speaking with Schaefer. Pinnock spoke to
Schaefer, stating that HCFA would not allow NTEU in public access areas
for further petitioning. Schaefer met the second week of January 1982,
with two of Respondent's Labor Relations Specialists, Mr. McGuire and
Mrs. Holland. Schaefer was told by HCFA's representatives that AFGE had
objected to NTEU's petitioning in public access areas and HCFA would no
longer permit NTEU to petition in those areas. Schaefer told
Respondent's representatives that HCFA lacked authority to grant or deny
access to NTEU. Schaefer provided HCFA's representatives with a copy of
out-dated GSA regulations on procedures for soliciting signatures in
public access areas. HCFA's representatives said they were unaware of
such regulations. Schaefer told HCFA's representatives that NTEU would
allow HCFA 2 weeks in which to reconsider its opposition to NTEU's
presence on HCFA's property. Upon return to his office, Schaefer
telephoned HCFA's representatives and referred them to the updated GSA
regulations posted in Respondent's lobby areas. /3/ Sometime after
January 23, 1982, Holman was telephonically contacted by Pinnock and
told that NTEU representatives would be re-entering Respondent's
premises the following day. Holman replied that Respondent had
concluded it could not keep NTEU from the premises. Holman contacted
Schaefer and said that Respondent's investigation revealed no authority
to grant or deny NTEU's presence in the public areas.
NTEU representatives sought employee signatures on petitions at
Respondent's premises on January 27 and 29, 1982 and February 11 and 16,
1982. Non-employee representatives of NTEU solicited employee
signatures on petitions on January 29, 1982 between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00
p.m. in the cafeteria, ground floor, East High Rise. NTEU
representatives engaged in this solicitation were in the cafeteria lobby
area, asking HCFA's employees to sign a petition for the purpose of
allowing an election between AFGE and NTEU. Both Holman and HCFA's
Chief Contract Negotiator witnessed this NTEU solicitation. A
non-employee representative of NTEU used a government telephone in the
hallway of the ground floor, East High Rise Building during this period.
This hallway is off of the cafeteria and management caucus room, near
the elevators. Joseph Flynn alerted Holman that the NTEU representative
was using the phone. Holman walked from the management caucus room, a
few steps down the hallway, and approached the NTEU representative and
told the NTEU representative to use nearby public telephones in the
future.
The cafeteria, lobby areas and hallways connecting lobby areas
together are space for which Respondent pays no standard level users
charge or SLUC. These areas are public, in that the general public can
freely enter and exit. HCFA obtains use of such space telephonically or
by memo asking GSA's permission. Rohde testified that HCFA does not
control people in GSA controlled public areas. GSA Building regulations
were posted in Respondent's Buildings. HCFA has a reception desk in the
lobby area of the ground floor, East High Rise. The receptionist is an
employee of HCFA. At all entranceways to the East High Rise and East
Low Rise Buildings, the doors carry the statement "HCFA visitors please
report to the reception desk."
Discussion and Conclusions
Section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute provides:
"7116 Unfair Labor Practices
(a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an agency . . .
(3) to sponsor, control or otherwise assist any labor
organization other than to furnish, upon request, customary and
routine services and facilities if the services and facilities are
also furnished on an impartial basis to other labor organizations
having equivalent status; . . . "
The basic intention and approach of section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute
is the same as that set forth in Section 19(a)(3) of Executive Order
11491, as amended, /4/ the predecessor instrument governing
labor-relations in the federal sector.
It is unlawful and violative of the Statute for an Agency to grant
access to its premises to a labor organization, without equivalent
status, to conduct organizing or solicitation campaigns. cf. Defense
Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services Region, SF,
Burlingame, California, A/SLMR No. 247 (1973), Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts, A/SLMR No. 263
(1973); Department of the Navy, Navy Commissary Store Complex, Oakland,
A/SLMR No. 654 (1976); Department of the Army; Commissary, Fort Meade,
A/SLMR No. 793 (1977); United States Department of Justice, United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 9 FLRA 253 (1982); and
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2 FLRA 359 (1979).
In the instant case the solicitations by NTEU were carried on in the
public areas (entries, lobbies and cafeteria) over which Respondent has
no jurisdiction and which are under the control and supervision of the
General Services Administration (GSA). Respondent advised AFGE that it
had no control over the areas utilized by NTEU and that GSA controlled
those areas. On the occasion that Respondent HCFA was advised that an
NTEU representative was using one of Respondent's telephones, located in
a public area, Respondent instructed the NTEU representative to use a
public phone.
In these circumstances I conclude that Respondents did not give any
unlawful assistance to NTEU. Respondent did not permit or authorize
NTEU to utilize any of Respondent's facilities. Those facilities that
NTEU used were controlled by GSA.
General Counsel of the FLRA contends that Respondent has some sort of
affirmative obligation to go to another, totally separate, Federal
Agency, GSA, and, to some degree, urge or insist that GSA forbid NTEU
from utilizing GSA controlled space, which is contiguous to Respondent's
space. I find no such obligation imposed on Respondent by the express
language of Section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute, by the Statute's
legislative history, by FLRA interpretations of the Statute or by any
common sense reading of the Statute. The Section 7116(a)(3) of the
statute is a limitation on Agency conduct; any imposition of an
affirmative obligation to control the conduct of any other agency would
have to be express. The limits of any such obligation would be
difficult to draw. Would an agency have obligation to insist that the
Interior Department stop union solicitation in a National Park across
the street from a federal office building? Different agencies' space
often abut, in all these instances would one agency violate the Statute
if it did not sufficiently insist that another agency stop union
solicitation. Such an obligation would be onerous and, in light of the
independence of agencies, unworkable.
General Counsel of the FLRA also contends that NTEU's use of GSA
space violated GSA's own rules and regulations. Somehow this was
alleged to be a violation of law by Respondent. On the contrary, while
that was a matter among GSA, NTEU and AFGE, it did not constitute a
violation of the Statute by Respondent.
In light of the foregoing I conclude that the record herein does not
establish that HCFA violated Section 7116(a)(3) and (1) of the Statute.
It is therefore recommended that the Authority issue the following:
ORDER
The Complaint in Case No. 3-CA-20319 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: August 30, 1983
Washington, DC
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Respondent's opposition to the exceptions of the Charging
Party and the General Counsel was untimely filed and, hence, was not
considered by the Authority in reaching its decision herein.
/2/ The cafeteria is operated by ARA, pursuant to a contract with
GSA.
/3/ Applicability. These rules and regulations apply to all property
under the charge and control of the U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA) and to all persons entering in or on such property. Each occupant
agency shall be responsible for the observance of these rules and
regulations.
Soliciting, vending, and debt collection (41 CFR 101-20.308).
Soliciting aims, commercial or political soliciting, and vending of all
kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising or collecting
private debts on GSA-controlled property is prohibited. This rule does
not apply to (a) national or local drives for funds for welfare, health,
or other purposes as authorized by the "Manual on Fund Raising Within
the Federal Service," issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
under Executive Order 10927 of March 18, 1961, and sponsored or approved
by the occupant agencies; (b) concessions or personal notices posted by
employees on authorized bulletin boards; (c) solicitation of labor
organization membership or dues authorized by occupant agencies under
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-454); and (d) a
lessee, or its agents and employees, with respect to space leased for
commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational use under the Public
Buildings Cooperative Act of 1976 (Title 40, U.S. Code 409(a)(16)).
Public areas of GSA-controlled property may be used for other activities
permitted in accordance with Subpart 101-20.7.
Distribution of handbills (41 CFR 101-20.309). Posting or affixing
materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, on bulletin boards or
elsewhere on GSA-controlled property is prohibited, except as authorized
in Sec. 101-20.308 or when these displays are conducted as part of
authorized Government activities. Distribution of materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers is prohibited, except in the public areas
of the property as defined in Sec. 101-20.701(b), unless conducted as
part of authorized Government activities. Any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section
shall first obtain a permit from the buildings manager under Subpart
101-20.7 and shall conduct distribution in accordance with the
provisions of Subpart 101-20.7. Failure to comply with those provisions
is a violation of these regulations.
/4/ Section 19(a)(3) of Executive Order 11491, as amended, provided:
Sec. 19 Unfair labor Practice.
(a) Agency management shall not . . .
(3) sponsor, control or otherwise assist a labor organization,
except that an agency may furnish customary and routine services
and facilities under Section 23 of this Order when consistent with
the best interest of the Agency, its employees and the
organization, and when the service and facilities are furnished,
if requested, on a impartial basis to organizations having
equivalent status.